Ray Dembinski made a motion to approve the January 15, 2003, meeting minutes.
Ray Tourville seconded the motion.

Having no corrections or additions, the motion was carried unanimously
and the minutes were approved.

III. Committee
Reports

A. Budget

No report. The Board will address the Second Quarterly Report
under New Business.

B. Student Welfare

No report. Dr. Kim Judson will make a presentation under New
Business.

C. Gender Equity

No report. Paul Bauer will make a presentation under Old Business.

D. Faculty Athletics Representative

Ray Dembinski and Sandy Hafner-Arnold presented an overview of the impact
the 40/60/80% rule would have on our current student-athletes if the
rule were in effect now. Sandy provided a list of what majors the
student-athletes are currently in. The information is as of the completion
of the fall
2002 semester.

Ray said when looking at the old criteria (25/50/75%) and the new criteria
(40/60/80%), this is a front-end load proposal With the new
criteria, a
student-athlete would be required to have completed 48 hours at the end
of their sophomore year, which is quite an increase from the 30 hours under
the old criteria. CHANCE students would run the risk of having 19
of their hours not counting plus having to pick up additional hours.
These new
criteria will really impact student by the end of their second year here.

Sandy said the biggest concern would be those student-athletes with a cumulative
GPA of between 2.0 and 2.5. Because of the minimum GPA
requirements to get into certain majors, those are the students who will
have difficulty finding a major in which they can be successful.

Ray Dembinski said there are 125 athletes with GPAs between 2.0 and 2.5
and then the others have a GPA of 3.0 and higher. There really is
no
middle ground. Brian Scholle asked what the point is for this legislation.
Ray explained that it was desired that the NCAA address the graduation
rate
problem in intercollegiate athletics. Rather than addressing the
specific schools’ abysmal graduation rates, the NCAA decided to raise the
requirements for all schools. The next phase for this legislation
will be the penalty phase. It will force coaches to be careful about
the academic
credentials of the student-athletes they are recruiting. If there
is no support system or degree access system in place, a coach could lose
an athlete.

Paul Bauer asked how the enforcement will differ between 25/50/75% and
40/60/80%. Ray responded that there currently is no enforcement.
Paul
then asked if there was a recommended guideline before and Ray said there
were never numbers attached to this legislation but the NCAA has seen
there was no effect before and so now they have raised the bar and every
school is in the same boat. Some institutions were meeting the standards
but students were not graduating. Robert Collins said those schools
will still recruit the marginal athletes because they will join the professional
teams.
Ray Dembinski said if those schools don’t graduate people in the cohort,
it has been suggested that they will lose a scholarship for each individual
below a certain number or they could deny access to post-season tournaments
or lose access to the NCAA revenue monies. Ray Tourville said the
only thing that this legislation will impact is through the punitive phase.
Brian Scholle said it seems as if it would only hurt the student-athletes
in the
middle. Ray Dembinski said part of the response from the NCAA was
if an institution is concerned about students not meeting the standards,
don’t
recruit those students. That seems to be getting into a denial of
opportunity.

John Walton asked if compliance with this legislation is actual compliance
or is it statistical compliance? Ray responded that if the student-athlete
has
48 hours toward graduation and leaves the institution in his or her fourth
semester, the institution would be in compliance. John went on to
say that it
appears an institution could be penalized on both ends of the situation,
whether a student is good or bad academically. With respect to minority
athletes, it seems discriminatory. Robert Collins said it will
also increase enrollment of students at NAIA institutions. Ray added
that the system is
effective with the incoming class of students. The students who are
already here will be able to use the system currently in place. The
information
being presented to the Board today is done so as an example of what Athletics
is dealing with.

John Walton then asked if, when looking at the statistics presented, part
of the problem is the focus of NIU standards for students being in and
remaining in certain majors. Ray said that one way a school or university
responds to this is they simply create programs where no matter what the
student-athlete does, he or she will make the necessary progress.
John went on to say that either way, it appears the NCAA is providing two
bad
choices: either having a negative impact on the athletes or on the
academic standards. You could doctor programs so that a student-athlete
having a
2.5 GPA gets into any major. Ray responded by saying that decisions
regarding program standards reside with the program faculty.

Sandy Hafner-Arnold, Ray Dembinski, and Gip met with Robert Wheeler and
Anne Kaplan recently to review the information and try to establish
what the next step should be. Presently, there are several things
in progress. A meeting is scheduled with the Council of Deans to
apprise them of the
situation and that this is an issue which affects these students.
The following week, a meeting is scheduled with the advising deans to discuss
this
information. They are more in line with program planning so they
are aware of some things to consider. A list is also being
compiled of all the “open”
majors (those with a GPA requirement of 2.0 or better) and development
of a “menu” from which students could view career or major opportunities
which exist outside the realm of restricted majors. Ray Dembinski
said it is apparent from looking at Sandy’s it is a fairly wide representation
of
majors.

Gip said when looking at available options, there are only two colleges
with 2.0 to 2.5 GPA requirements from which to choose: Health and
Human
Sciences and Liberal Arts and Sciences. Ray Dembinski said unlike
typical students who, if they want to get into a particular major, can
shift their
focus and get 15 – 18 hours to allow them to be considered. Athletes
do not have that option because they have a clock they are operating on.
They
cannot take a semester or two off to increase their academic credentials.
John Walton asked if it is possible to identify incoming students as being
at-risk in terms of academics and have an academic support program to begin
working with them before they start accumulating hours for graduation.
He explained in the College of Law, at-risk students can come in early,
before school begins, and take an intense course of study which helps them
acclimated in certain courses. Sandy said all incoming student-athletes
are prescreened to determine any deficiencies but Athletics does not have
them
come to campus before the beginning of classes to participate in something
like the College of Law’s program. Athletics does have a learning
specialist on staff who works with students on study skills, time management,
etc.

Brooke Robinson asked how many hours student-athletes are required to take.
Sandy said in general they take 15 hours but they are required to take
a minimum of 12 hours. She went on to say that current satisfactory
progress rules (25/50/75%) require them to take a minimum of 12
degree-relevant hours a semester and to earn 24 degree-relevant hours between
the fall/spring/summer semesters. Once an athlete declares a major,
anything not going toward that major does not count in the hours they are
taking.

Paul Bauer said priorities for summer school offerings have changed recently
and that those priorities are established not only for the institution
but
within the departments. Summer is the least predictable in terms
of course offerings. Sandy said the budget constraints are a concern
for students
who are considering summer school. Students can go to community college
in the summer but they need to request permission before doing so.

Gip said the intent was to bring this information forward today to show
the Board members where compliance and Student-Athlete Support Services
are and to try to get this information out on campus on this particular
issue. A number of suggestions were made regarding who else should
receive
this information. Gip said more information will be brought back
to the Board. Sheila Berg asked if summer school is counted in this
and Sandy said
it is just the academic year. Summer school will be an issue because
of how selective the Athletic Department is with who is awarded summer
aid.

The question was then asked of the 400 athletes, how many were special
access admissions. Sandy said she did not know, between CHANCE and
sponsored admission but Ray Dembinski answered that probably less than
10% of all athletes were admitted through CHANCE and sponsored
admissions.

E. Huskie Club

No report.

F. Scheduling

No report.

IV.
Old Business

A. Interests and Abilities Survey

Paul Bauer began the discussion by thanking Dee Abrahamson , Ralph Chaplin,
and Michael Coakley for their assistance in getting this survey
administered on January 22. Dee secured the assistance of athletics
staff members and Ralph, director of Student Housing and Dining Services,
and
Michael, executive director of Student Housing and Dining Services, were
kind enough to provide meals for those individuals administering the survey
during the lunch hour.

For benefit of new Board members, Paul provided background on the reason
for administering the survey. There are three prongs associated with
compliance with Title IX. The interests and abilities survey helps
with that process. Gip said legal counsel will be involved with the
process in the
future.

At this time, the tests have been taken to Testing Services for analysis
and Paul does not have data yet but when it is available, a report will
be made
to the Board.

B. Title IX Commission Report

Gip stated that because Cary Groth was unable to attend today’s meeting,
this report will be held over to the March Board meeting.

V.
New Business

A. 2nd Quarterly Report

Ray Tourville began by presenting an overview of the report. Sheila
said the recommendation that went to the fee committee has been that Athletics
needs to look at addressing the carryover deficit so that it does not get
out of control. The athletic board budget subcommittee went to the
fee
committee but Dr. Williams stated it had come from President Peters that
the carryover deficit be addressed. The fee committee did not finalize
anything at its meeting today and will schedule another meeting fairly
quickly. The bottom line is that President Peters and Dr. Williams
both agree that
the deficit needs to be addressed.

B. Student Welfare Assessment – Dr. Kim Judson

Ken Olson began discussion by stating that Kim Judson was asked to attend
today’s meeting to provide an update on her survey.

Kim agreed at the beginning of the fall semester to conduct a qualitative
survey. She will plan to do that this coming fall. The information
Kim is
presenting today was collected this past fall and she expressed her appreciation
at being able to administer the survey.

The survey was based on how prospective student-athletes make choices as
to which college they attend. This was a good study and unique because
it addressed the college choice immediately after it was made, rather than
after they had arrived on campus.

The information in table 1 relates specifically to Northern Illinois University.
The top criterion affecting a student-athlete’s decision to attend Northern
Illinois University is the level of athletic competition. This speaks
to our conference affiliation and should be recognized as something important
to our
athletes.

Kim went on to review each of the decision criteria. As for ‘desired
major offered’, it seems that sports management is the top choice of major
for
athletes. For ‘relationship with coach’, in talking with the athletes,
a prior relationship with the coach was part of the athletes’ decision.

After reviewing each of the criteria in table 1, Kim then moved on to table
2 and highlighted the information there. This information is data
from NIU
and the University of Illinois combined. Kim explained that she had
defined ‘revenue generating’ as football and men’s basketball. The
athletes
surveyed were all scholarship athletes, either full or partial scholarships.
None of the athletes surveyed were non-scholarship. When looking
at
choices made by scholarship versus non-scholarship athletes, there were
quite a few differences. The scholarship athletes were much more
concerned
about the level of athletic competition.

Data in table 6 showed that the level of athletic competition was much
more important to males than females. The institution’s academic
reputation
was more important to females but history of the specific sport’s success
was more important to the males. Athletic-related criteria were more
important to the males and academic-related criteria were more important
to the females.

After having no questions from the floor, Gip said the plan now is to wait
to talk with athletes in face-to-face meetings at the beginning of next
semester when they have completed a year and see how the realities met
the perceptions.

C. Athletic Board Structure

Gip explained that he and Janaan had compiled a comparison of Athletic
Board structures across the MAC school. He had asked last fall for
this
same information from the MAC schools but received very few responses so
he went to each institution’s Faculty Senate website and got the
information from there. As you look at the information, you will
also see included information from the University of Iowa, the University
of Illinois,
and the University of Tennessee to provide a look nationally as to how
their boards are constructed. Additionally, there is a copy of the
information
relating to the Athletic Board from the NIU Constitution and Bylaws and
also a copy of the NCAA Bylaw 6.1.2 regarding institutional control.
Gip
also included articles from the Chronicle of Higher Education and the AAUP
on faculty control as it relates to athletics and where it fits within
an
institution. It would be a benefit to have this information as we
begin to discuss the governance of this board and its relationship to Athletics,
the things
we do as part of policies and procedures, the make-up of the Athletic Board,
and undertaking a review of the structure and function of the Board.

Gip wanted to get this information distributed to everyone for their review
and to begin discussion at next month’s meeting. At that time, please
bring
forward any comments, questions or observations as to how we are structured.
Paul asked if there is a way to change the representation on the
Board. Gip said if that were decided, it would go through the University
Council and Faculty Senate. It is his feeling that we could be a
more
involved Board by sharing important pieces of information with the respective
constituencies.

Gip went on to say that he has tried to look at what other institutions’
boards deal with and it is all across the board. Ray Dembinski could
be a good
resource through the other MAC faculty representatives. Ray said
one of the major issues the faculty representatives are looking at is eligibility
of
athletes. He then pointed out that in NCAA Bylaw 6.1.2, athletic
boards are not mandated.

Gip then said we should plan to spend time at the March meeting discussing
things the Board might like to pursue, are there things we should change
or add, etc.

VI. Miscellaneous / Adjournment

A. Robert Collins said there was an article in
today’s Northern Star about Willy Roy not having his contract renewed as
head soccer coach. Robert
went on to apologize to the Board for hearing about this from the media
but the process moved along very quickly. Cary wants to make sure
the
Board knows that and there was no specific incident or reason behind this
decision.

The football schedule is still not firm but as soon as it is, he will let
the Board know.

The next meeting of the Athletic
Board will be on Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 1:00 p.m. in Holmes Student
Center room #406. The executive committee will meet on Wednesday,
March 5, at 1:00 p.m. in the administration conference room in the convocation
center.